Energy, population, and economic growth
Blog belongs to a physics professor at UCSD, and the posts I'll link were the ones he led with before toning things down and discussing more limited subjects. Basically, they establish the ground rules to his line of thinking on all things energy/economy/growth.
The first post, Galactic-Scale Energy, he establishes that the laws of thermodynamics (forget The Market) prevents endless growth in energy production/consumption. This sector flatlining or contracting is inevitable, or we'll all be living on a planet that closely resembles the center of the sun.
In response to one of the comments under that first post, he further clarified the data trends in a post titled Does the Logistics Shoe Fit?
His second big post is the one that I've seen hotly debated and may be fun to discuss here. In Can Economic Growth Last?, he posits that it is impossible to decouple economic growth from a flatlined or contracting energy sector. It's a very similar argument to that surrounding automation and the contracting of the job market that this will force. On one side of the debate are those who say that if robots are doing everything, more people will be out of work. On the other are those who say that new technology will mean replacement jobs forever just like industrial jobs replacing agricultural. In the case of energy and the economy, the counterargument is that virtual goods replace physical goods, and the economy keeps growing in spite net-zero energy consumption. This dude disagrees.
Anyway, maybe somebody here will find it interesting. Or at least enjoy gazing upon my hotness in my avatar over there.
Comments
-
I skimmed the first one...read like the mental masturbation of a not-so-bright science guy who just got his first teaching gig in science. Skimming the second one it looks like said person investing in his first 401K.
Yes, we continuously use more energy...comparing it to solar anything is dumb because because it is stored energy over millions of years. Efficiency prices itself in...when the costs go up you will see usage going down. And assuming population anything 50 years out is even dumber...fertility rates have dropped from 7 to under 2 from the 1800s until now. Been buffered by extending average lifetimes but we are hitting the limits of that now. Most first-world countries are worried about maintaining population much less growing it.
He should do that analysis on China...he'll conclude the world is ending much sooner than a couple hundred years out. -
This is pretty much his point: Constant growth is impossible over the long term, both in terms of population and energy consumption, so does this also make perpetual economic growth impossible? We can only service each other and profit in a circle over imaginary assets so much before physical goods have to be produced, and there is a limit imposed by physical laws on the rate at which this can occur. Approach that limit, and you have a steady state economy whether you want it or not.HoustonHusky said:I skimmed the first one...read like the mental masturbation of a not-so-bright science guy who just got his first teaching gig in science. Skimming the second one it looks like said person investing in his first 401K.
Yes, we continuously use more energy...comparing it to solar anything is dumb because because it is stored energy over millions of years. Efficiency prices itself in...when the costs go up you will see usage going down. And assuming population anything 50 years out is even dumber...fertility rates have dropped from 7 to under 2 from the 1800s until now. Been buffered by extending average lifetimes but we are hitting the limits of that now. Most first-world countries are worried about maintaining population much less growing it.
He should do that analysis on China...he'll conclude the world is ending much sooner than a couple hundred years out. -
That's a dumb take though...economic growth does not equal population growth or energy growth. You could artificially hold population and energy consumption the same and you would still get people making faster computers, better medicine, better TVs, etc. Historical correlation does not equal future causation.
-
Again, your final sentence supports his argument. Just because a growth economy is possible now (and we're already seeing the cracks starting to form), doesn't mean it will continue to be in perpetuity. As to the bolded, this doesn't address the concern at all. Per one of your examples:HoustonHusky said:That's a dumb take though...economic growth does not equal population growth or energy growth. You could artificially hold population and energy consumption the same and you would still get people making faster computers, better medicine, better TVs, etc. Historical correlation does not equal future causation.
You're a company that makes ever-faster computers, and sales have to grow in order for your company to grow. But population is flat or shrinking, as you previously agreed is inevitable. You sell a million computers in year X. Let's say the population stabilizes at 10 billion people and your company's investors demand 10% growth. It only takes 97 years before your company would have to sell a computer to everyone on earth to maintain that growth. Not much longer before you have to sell two to everyone per year, and not much longer still before you're selling a computer to everyone on earth ten times every day. Without a growing population and energy production, how do you maintain perpetual growth? -
Disagree completely. Say energy prices go through the roof...you are now a computer company that sells computers that are more energy efficient for the same or slightly more power. They get better and better...people buy them accordingly because they provide additional value to them. Somebody comes out with yet another new device that adapts to that change in the market. Look at food production...the efficiency of producing food has gone from 80+% of the population focused on it to less than 5%. Did the world end? Nobody says farming is a growth industry, but it doesn't mean there aren't thousands of other industries that are that popped up because the resources (workers) became available. As long as technology is marching forward and people's standard of living is increasing you will have growth.1to392831weretaken said:
Again, your final sentence supports his argument. Just because a growth economy is possible now (and we're already seeing the cracks starting to form), doesn't mean it will continue to be in perpetuity. As to the bolded, this doesn't address the concern at all. Per one of your examples:HoustonHusky said:That's a dumb take though...economic growth does not equal population growth or energy growth. You could artificially hold population and energy consumption the same and you would still get people making faster computers, better medicine, better TVs, etc. Historical correlation does not equal future causation.
You're a company that makes ever-faster computers, and sales have to grow in order for your company to grow. But population is flat or shrinking, as you previously agreed is inevitable. You sell a million computers in year X. Let's say the population stabilizes at 10 billion people and your company's investors demand 10% growth. It only takes 97 years before your company would have to sell a computer to everyone on earth to maintain that growth. Not much longer before you have to sell two to everyone per year, and not much longer still before you're selling a computer to everyone on earth ten times every day. Without a growing population and energy production, how do you maintain perpetual growth?
Markets are a wonderful thing...science teachers worried about their fascination with basic thermo usually aren't good arbiters of how they works.
-
Pretty interesting discussions. I've perused all three articles but have to read them again to account for my lack of an attention span.
I am probably missing the point here massively, but I wonder ... which do I care about?
Status quo - I invest my money and, through dividends, I am paid a return. That's circular. I'm trading risk and time for more dollars to circulate back into the economy. This can happen without making the pie larger. Think energy and timber investments. As long as what they produce is renewable, I don't care. I do suppose that to the extent population is the key variable, if there are few people consuming their renewable, that could be a problem.
Growth - this only happens when value is being created from a baseline. But it's accomplished with either or both of two things: selling more of something or selling something better to replace the last thing you sold. Even in a declining population, the latter can still generate growth.
IDK. I'm sure there is something there that I missed. It was good, but heavy, reading. I'm glad you shared it. What he seems to ... not so much miss as underestimate, is the ingenuity of our species. In our own lifetimes we've seen this. Even relative to energy. I'm loathe to take on a physicist on the topic of solar energy, but he seemed to dismiss it as limited without trying very hard. Maybe we find away to get more of it through the atmosphere and clouds. Maybe we do, in fact, incorporate the ocean somehow in the collection process.
As Houston said, markets are a terribly effective motivator.
Also, the factors that lead to declining population can be replaced or affected by other factors. It isn't obvious to me that the pressures that lead to having fewer children are permanent and unalterable. It's still in our DNA to produce ... all the smut talk around here will remind you of that.
-
Historical correlation does not equal future causation. I even mentioned the transition from agriculture to manufacturing in a previous post. At the time, the population and global energy consumption were also rapidly expanding. Even today, emerging markets are keeping a lot of businesses afloat as domestic sales shrink.HoustonHusky said:
Disagree completely. Say energy prices go through the roof...you are now a computer company that sells computers that are more energy efficient for the same or slightly more power. They get better and better...people buy them accordingly because they provide additional value to them. Somebody comes out with yet another new device that adapts to that change in the market. Look at food production...the efficiency of producing food has gone from 80+% of the population focused on it to less than 5%. Did the world end? Nobody says farming is a growth industry, but it doesn't mean there aren't thousands of other industries that are that popped up because the resources (workers) became available. As long as technology is marching forward and people's standard of living is increasing you will have growth.1to392831weretaken said:
Again, your final sentence supports his argument. Just because a growth economy is possible now (and we're already seeing the cracks starting to form), doesn't mean it will continue to be in perpetuity. As to the bolded, this doesn't address the concern at all. Per one of your examples:HoustonHusky said:That's a dumb take though...economic growth does not equal population growth or energy growth. You could artificially hold population and energy consumption the same and you would still get people making faster computers, better medicine, better TVs, etc. Historical correlation does not equal future causation.
You're a company that makes ever-faster computers, and sales have to grow in order for your company to grow. But population is flat or shrinking, as you previously agreed is inevitable. You sell a million computers in year X. Let's say the population stabilizes at 10 billion people and your company's investors demand 10% growth. It only takes 97 years before your company would have to sell a computer to everyone on earth to maintain that growth. Not much longer before you have to sell two to everyone per year, and not much longer still before you're selling a computer to everyone on earth ten times every day. Without a growing population and energy production, how do you maintain perpetual growth?
Markets are a wonderful thing...science teachers worried about their fascination with basic thermo usually aren't good arbiters of how they works.
In your example, the company that makes the more efficient product and sells a ton of them does so at the expense of either their existing product or another company's. Overall, it's a stalemate for the economy. Sales does not equal growth. More sales than last year/quarter/etc. equals growth. Which means more global production every year.
So you have a flat population, flat energy consumption (this is not optional, and there are limits to efficiency), yet growth economy. This--by necessity--increasingly means that value will have to be created out of thin air (like GameStop in your other thread). At some point, everybody's just Ubering each other around or supporting each other's YouTube channel, and the economy flatlines. -
Actually, he addressed this directly, even projecting out to encircling the sun with perfectly efficient panels.creepycoug said:Pretty interesting discussions. I've perused all three articles but have to read them again to account for my lack of an attention span.
I am probably missing the point here massively, but I wonder ... which do I care about?
Status quo - I invest my money and, through dividends, I am paid a return. That's circular. I'm trading risk and time for more dollars to circulate back into the economy. This can happen without making the pie larger. Think energy and timber investments. As long as what they produce is renewable, I don't care. I do suppose that to the extent population is the key variable, if there are few people consuming their renewable, that could be a problem.
Growth - this only happens when value is being created from a baseline. But it's accomplished with either or both of two thing: selling more of something or selling something better to replace the last thing you sold. Even in a declining population, the latter can still generate growth.
IDK. I'm sure there is something there that I missed. It was good, but heavy, reading. I'm glad you shared it. What he seems to ... not so much miss as underestimate, is the ingenuity of our species. In our own lifetimes we've seen this. Even relative to energy. I'm loathe to take on a physicist on the topic of solar energy, but he seemed to dismiss it as limited without trying very hard. Maybe we find away to get more of it through the atmosphere and clouds. Maybe we do, in fact, incorporate the ocean somehow in the collection process.
As Houston said, markets are a terribly effective motivator.
Also, the factors that lead to declining population can be replaced or affected by other factors. It isn't obvious to me that the pressures that lead to having fewer children are permanent and unalterable. It's still in our DNA to produce ... all the smut talk around here will remind you of that.
Fun question: Do you know what the brakes on your car do? I mean, in simple terms, they make your car stop. In engineering terms, they convert potential energy from forward motion into heat. Specifically, heat in the brake rotors (and some in the fluid). There is no free lunch. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the energy source comes from solar, fossil fuels, cold fusion, whatever. He chose solar for his example because it's easy to expand that into space. Using that energy generates heat, and exponential functions are powerful. We're still in the flat part of a lot of those curves, but they get awfully steep awfully quickly.
We can use a fuckton of energy to power the economy with little effect on global surface temperature, just not an infinite amount. Infinite growth requires an infinite ceiling. The whole point is that thermodynamics dictate that energy use cannot increase indefinitely or you boil yourself like the proverbial frog, efficiency gains slow this process but quickly reach a theoretical limit that barely creates a blip in the curve over a relatively short timeline (but longer than any of us will live), thus hitting a ceiling in energy growth while perpetually growing the economy creates an inflection point between those two curves with interesting consequences. 100 years from now? 500 years from now? Fuck if I know, I'm just some fat dude in a sexy thong, but the article suggests it's chinevitable.
Around the time I found these blog posts, I stumbled upon a lecture from a professor at University of Colorado. Very similar principles. I'll attach it below, but skip to 22:00 for an interesting thought experiment when it comes to exponentials. 4:05 is also cool. I enjoyed the whole lecture, even though it's slow and dumbed down a bit for hung over college freshmen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8 -
The Eeyore position is always popular with a certain segment of the population.
Whether it's the economy, peak oil, global warming and climate change, or Seattle dying, doom and gloom sells. I've heard it my whole life. I bet Race has, too - and that fucker actually rode dinosaurs.
Still here. Still first world. Still haven't missed a meal.
I'm starting to think Eeyore just likes to be a miserable fuck. -
You are off in the weeds now. This idiot’s claim is the future correlation between energy usage and economic growth which is FS. Case in point...in the US energy usage per capita is down over 10% from it’s peak in the early 1970s. I don’t think anyone would claim economic growth even accounting for population changes shrunk 10% between the early 1970s and today.
His fundamental assumption is wrong...which makes the rest of his discussion kinda useless. -
I've said before that Goldwater in 64 was the first deficit hawkdflea said:The Eeyore position is always popular with a certain segment of the population.
Whether it's the economy, peak oil, global warming and climate change, or Seattle dying, doom and gloom sells. I've heard it my whole life. I bet Race has, too - and that fucker actually rode dinosaurs.
Still here. Still first world. Still haven't missed a meal.
I'm starting to think Eeyore just likes to be a miserable fuck.
Ever since the party out of power plays the part
That I recall that is -
US energy use per capita is down over 10% from its peak in the early 1970s, but population has also increased by over 50% since then. Between 1970 and 2019, total U.S. energy consumption (the number that matters to the argument) increased from 67.88 quadrillion Btu to 100.05 quadrillion Btu, a very similar increase. Besides, the world consists of more than the U.S., so U.S. energy use per capita ignores the increased exporting of the production of the goods that we consume. China's electrical consumption, for instance, has nearly septupled in just 18 years, between 2000 and 2018, in spite of sub-1% population growth over that time. That's like taking your dog to your neighbor's yard to shit and then using your spotless yard as an argument for opening a sustainable petting zoo.HoustonHusky said:You are off in the weeds now. This idiot’s claim is the future correlation between energy usage and economic growth which is FS. Case in point...in the US energy usage per capita is down over 10% from it’s peak in the early 1970s. I don’t think anyone would claim economic growth even accounting for population changes shrunk 10% between the early 1970s and today.
His fundamental assumption is wrong...which makes the rest of his discussion kinda useless.
Meanwhile, Global energy consumption looks like this:
So huge disagreement on the wrongness of his fundamental theory. I see a global energy use graph that's skyrocketing, perfectly explaining the current growth economy. -
Keep moving the goalposts. Energy usage per capita increases drastically when moving from 3rd world to 1st world status. Energy usage (and material usage...plastics/etc) growth drops off dramatically and even decreases once at first world status. Great graph though showing how the rest of the world is developing.
Dude is wrong...doesn’t seem to understand a lot of things. Not sure why you are defending him so much. -
It's not about him. I just happen to think he's not wrong. And I'm not moving the goalpost. The articles I posted were about global energy consumption and economic growth. You tried reducing that to incomplete statistics for U.S.-only energy consumption.HoustonHusky said:Keep moving the goalposts. Energy usage per capita increases drastically when moving from 3rd world to 1st world status. Energy usage (and material usage...plastics/etc) growth drops off dramatically and even decreases once at first world status. Great graph though showing how the rest of the world is developing.
Dude is wrong...doesn’t seem to understand a lot of things. Not sure why you are defending him so much.
Let me get this straight: You buy an iPhone. X number of Btu of energy are used to produce said iPhone. In mainland China. And yet more Btu to ship said iPhone over the ocean. Pretty sweet deal: A company in Cupertino profits, the economy grows, all without using a single Btu of energy in the good ol' USofA! Like magic! That energy use in China is just them developing, the USA's economy can grow forever without any concern over the energy units consumed overseas.
Since the planet's temperature is a problem for everyone, regardless of 1st or 3rd world status, the graph I posted is awfully important. It cannot continue forever or we bake. That's not debatable. Who gives a fuck who's using energy, only the total is important. That curve will eventually be forced to contract, limits to efficiency will be reached--globally, not shitting on the neighbor's lawn--and then the theory above is this renders a growth economy impossible.
It's just a fun debate, nothing to get upset over. -
About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”... -
Alright. I’ve got to read these again.
-
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose. -
Please don't hesitate to post or share articles. It's interesting. I've been tied up today so have not re-read the articles. They are dense (for me at least) and I need to focus to put it all together.1to392831weretaken said:
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose. -
You could do worse than starting with the video above. There's a lot of overlap and some cool thought experiments, two of which I timestamped in the post. I think the lecturer (now dead) does a pretty decent job, considering the dry material and the length of the lecture. I hadn't watched it since I found it probably a decade ago, and I just gave it another watch. Still holds up.creepycoug said:
Please don't hesitate to post or share articles. It's interesting. I've been tied up today so have not re-read the articles. They are dense (for me at least) and I need to focus to put it all together.1to392831weretaken said:
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose. -
Look...the guy is a physicist and glancing through his calculations I don't see anything wrong with those.1to392831weretaken said:
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose.
My problem with all of these types of analysis is that they don't frame themselves as 'hey look...here is an interesting look at the physical limitation of solar energy we can get'. Instead they delve into fear porn in areas way outside of their expertise, and instead of digging into those they just make broad assumptions that aren't valid in order to validate a point of view.
Case in point...the first chart from the guy:
Looks dramatic, but if you look at it with any detail thought you'd realize all this is another graph for historical population that falls apart after 1900s. Plot this data:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2os2xmaster/chapter/united-states-population-chart/
Between 1600s and late 1800s its not like people were growing their energy usage by leaps and bounds...they burned stuff to stay warm and rode horses. Population grew exponentially so the overall "energy production rate" grew exponentially. You take that population curve which is what that chart is based on and project it out it assumes the US population in 2200 is over 500,000,000,000. I've never, ever, in a million years seen any population forecast that comes close to that...if you have I'd love to see it.
The graph falls apart at the tail end when you look at oil being discovered (late 1800s) and population growth slowing down followed by energy use per capita shrinking since the 1970s...you don't notice on the exponential chart but all the driving forces behind energy usage and growth changed dramatically. Add to that energy is no different than any other market...when its cheap it gets used with little efficiency and when it gets expensive it get rationed.
Ignoring all this pretty basic understanding of the overall energy system over time is what bugs me...apologize if you are offended. -
What is the Proper global temperature Anyone know?
Who set it? What did they base it on? -
So you didn't click the second link I posted and look at it at all. It's an entire article discussing this very criticism (the U.S. energy curve tapering off).HoustonHusky said:
Look...the guy is a physicist and glancing through his calculations I don't see anything wrong with those.1to392831weretaken said:
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.HoustonHusky said:About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose.
My problem with all of these types of analysis is that they don't frame themselves as 'hey look...here is an interesting look at the physical limitation of solar energy we can get'. Instead they delve into fear porn in areas way outside of their expertise, and instead of digging into those they just make broad assumptions that aren't valid in order to validate a point of view.
Case in point...the first chart from the guy:
Looks dramatic, but if you look at it with any detail thought you'd realize all this is another graph for historical population that falls apart after 1900s. Plot this data:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2os2xmaster/chapter/united-states-population-chart/
Between 1600s and late 1800s its not like people were growing their energy usage by leaps and bounds...they burned stuff to stay warm and rode horses. Population grew exponentially so the overall "energy production rate" grew exponentially. You take that population curve which is what that chart is based on and project it out it assumes the US population in 2200 is over 500,000,000,000. I've never, ever, in a million years seen any population forecast that comes close to that...if you have I'd love to see it.
The graph falls apart at the tail end when you look at oil being discovered (late 1800s) and population growth slowing down followed by energy use per capita shrinking since the 1970s...you don't notice on the exponential chart but all the driving forces behind energy usage and growth changed dramatically. Add to that energy is no different than any other market...when its cheap it gets used with little efficiency and when it gets expensive it get rationed.
Ignoring all this pretty basic understanding of the overall energy system over time is what bugs me...apologize if you are offended.
Besides, he flat out says that recent data tapering was ignored specifically to point out the absurdity of continued growth in energy. You keep focusing on limits of solar, which means you keep missing the point: It does not matter what your source of energy is. The USE of energy generates heat. The earth's capacity to radiate this his into space is limited. Exponential energy growth will boil the earth. End of story. There is no debating that. In fact, the author should be applauded for the choice of solar, as it's the most fair choice to critics of this premise: Solar power does not generate more heat than would otherwise hit the surface of the earth, thus the physical limitation of solar is the amount of energy reaching the surface of the earth times the efficiency of the panels. The earth only starts boiling in this scenario when gathering more solar energy than available on the planet's surface.
With the notion of the impossibility of endless energy growth established, the next two links discuss the implications. And I keep pointing out that your refutations keep accidentally agreeing with these premises. For example, nobody in this whole discussion has projected impossibly high U.S. or global population. In fact, the premise is the OPPOSITE: "Now that we've established infinite population growth is impossible, let's explore the implications..." Nobody in this whole discussion has projected infinite energy growth per capita. In fact, the premise is the OPPOSITE: "Now that we've established infinite energy growth (per capita or otherwise) is impossible, let's explore the implications..."
This whole thread, it's come across like you agree with his premises on all counts but disagree with the conclusion. Because you seem to be confused about these premises (you stated right from the top that you merely skimmed, and you clearly didn't even click on one out three links), you've failed so support your disagreement.
Let me summarize the argument very simply, and I'm very interested in your response, as you seem pretty passionate about this:
1.) Population cannot grow forever (you've agreed in this thread).
2.) Energy consumption--per capita or otherwise (which becomes the same thing when population stabilizes)--cannot grow forever because physics. This is true for solar, true for some future cold fusion technology, true for magical unicorn farts.
_______________________________________
3.) If 1 and 2 are true, perpetual economic growth is also impossible.
The basis for the conclusion of this argument is that there are also physical limits to efficiency. Eventually, producing ever more goods will require using ever more energy. The only way to avoid this is for the economy to increasingly value non-physical goods. Driving even deeper...
Population stabilizes at, say 10 billion.
Since energy consumption per capita in the U.S. has stabilized, let's say that can continue forever. The rest of the world, though, will need to catch up. Every one of the 10 billion people on earth consuming what the average U.S. citizen does brings total global energy consumption up to over five times what it currently is, multiple doublings.
Consuming that much energy with anything other than renewables gets awfully hot, so lets do what the physicist did and say all this energy is produced by solar (who cares, but it's easier to illustrate the point this way). At current panel efficiency levels, that's covering all of Mexico. At double the efficiency (getting into sci-fi territory), that's covering all of Egypt. Either way, that's quite the endeavor.
So the economy grows until all 10 billion or whatever people on earth can consume energy like a modern American, and then what? Energy consumption per capita either starts to increase again (and there are--admittedly high--physical limits) or economic growth unmoors itself from energy growth. For economic growth to continue at that point, the proportion of non-energy-requiring economic activity must proportionally grow and grow and grow until energy becomes a vanishingly small component of the economy. The physicist posits that this is impossible. -
Ok...so I guess we can all agree then that the first article is absurd in all aspects? Look...the calcs are interesting I guess but when they are framed the way they were its hard to take anything from it seriously...looking at the 2nd link it looks like it tries to recover for the absurdity of the initial claims.
The last article you linked does much the same...the earth absorbs more energy from the sun in an hour than the globe produces in a year. Its tiny...a spec. The idea the market can somehow handle generating the amount of energy the US uses for everybody else in any measurable amount of time in insane. The resources in all aspects don't exist, but more importantly the dynamics for how it happened in the US don't translate. If/when energy prices do go up developing countries won't develop the same way the US did (sprawling suburbs, big cars, big houses...all a function of dirt-cheap energy prices and availability for the US the last 80+ years). As an example the Brits use about 1/3 of the energy per capita the US does. Dynamics there are different.
Most importantly, the energy efficiency in developed countries is improving and will continue to improve...energy usage per capita in first world countries is going down. Which will cap the energy usage of developing countries as the same technologies will cascade down. And as energy gets more expensive that trend will accelerate.
The last part makes no sense either...the argument is now an energy/population/economic one in which somehow if global energy usage isn't growing and global population isn't growing than the leap is that we have to have negative growth? This is the weirdest of all which doesn't follow simple logic...the last 50 years showed economic growth in 1st world countries is not coupled to energy usage (and technically statistics would show them being inversely correlated...). If you dig deeper you will find economic growth is correlated to but not dependent up population growth. You can have a stable or even shrinking population with economic growth...as long as the standard of living is improving, worker productivity is increasing, and new products are being developed in a rate that exceed the population stagnation/shrinkage you will see economic growth generated from it.
And if you screw up policy just print lots of money and call it good... -
You call it absurd, I call it a thought experiment that establishes that a boundary does exist, thus removing that from the debate so the more important question of "what next" can happen.HoustonHusky said:Ok...so I guess we can all agree then that the first article is absurd in all aspects? Look...the calcs are interesting I guess but when they are framed the way they were its hard to take anything from it seriously...looking at the 2nd link it looks like it tries to recover for the absurdity of the initial claims.
The last article you linked does much the same...the earth absorbs more energy from the sun in an hour than the globe produces in a year. Its tiny...a spec. The idea the market can somehow handle generating the amount of energy the US uses for everybody else in any measurable amount of time in insane. The resources in all aspects don't exist, but more importantly the dynamics for how it happened in the US don't translate. If/when energy prices do go up developing countries won't develop the same way the US did (sprawling suburbs, big cars, big houses...all a function of dirt-cheap energy prices and availability for the US the last 80+ years). As an example the Brits use about 1/3 of the energy per capita the US does. Dynamics there are different.
Most importantly, the energy efficiency in developed countries is improving and will continue to improve...energy usage per capita in first world countries is going down. Which will cap the energy usage of developing countries as the same technologies will cascade down. And as energy gets more expensive that trend will accelerate.
The last part makes no sense either...the argument is now an energy/population/economic one in which somehow if global energy usage isn't growing and global population isn't growing than the leap is that we have to have negative growth? This is the weirdest of all which doesn't follow simple logic...the last 50 years showed economic growth in 1st world countries is not coupled to energy usage (and technically statistics would show them being inversely correlated...). If you dig deeper you will find economic growth is correlated to but not dependent up population growth. You can have a stable or even shrinking population with economic growth...as long as the standard of living is improving, worker productivity is increasing, and new products are being developed in a rate that exceed the population stagnation/shrinkage you will see economic growth generated from it.
And if you screw up policy just print lots of money and call it good...
Efficiency is not the magic bullet. There is no such thing as 100% efficiency. Electric motors and electronics are already 90% efficient. Appliances are approaching maximum theoretical efficiency. There is no perpetual motion machine. Improvements in efficiency do not erase the impact of constant growth--an example being demand for gasoline slightly increasing since 2005 alongside a 25% improvement in average fuel economy. Increases in efficiency lead to flat spots or even dips in energy demand trends, but with growth in demand, the curve will always trend up over time.
As for the market not allowing for everyone on a future overpopulated earth not having the same piece of the energy pie that we do now, that's again another agreement with a premise: The resources don't exist, the climate impact would be disastrous, and more efficient societies will have to emerge. There is some limit to the amount of energy we as a species can put to use before physical constraints get in the way. Couple that with hitting limits to efficiency, and you're at a point where we're asking the economy to grow away without the energy budget growing.
Okay, so it's the year 534 ABD (anno-Ballz-Deep, who somehow becomes Global Emperor after the Big Back Revolt of 2056), and you've reached a global energy ceiling of 200 booglieWatts, and the global GEP (Gross Earth Product) sits at 100 Spacebucks, so it takes two booglieWatts to generate 1 Spacebuck. In 535 ABD, scientists have make a major development in crystaldong fission power, doubling the efficiency of the process, so instead of 50% of the booglieWatts being wasted, only 25% are. Holding the same energy consumption, you can now produce 150 Spacebucks worth of goods. In 536, another doubling of efficiency. Now only 12.5% of the boolgieWatts are wasted, and GWP grows to 175 Spacebucks. Another doubling in efficiency for the geeks in 537, but GWP only grows to 187.5 Spacebucks. Then 193.25. Then 196.625. Then 198.3125.
You get the point: Efficiency isn't the magic salve. Producing physical goods requires energy. Eventually, the economy levels out with the amount of physical goods it creates* or we're discussing an increased reliance on non-physical goods having value. If the value of non-physical goods is to maintain perpetual growth while physical goods don't, eventually a song license costs more than a Ferrari. Or other weird things. Not to say it's not possible, but is that where this is going?
*Steady state is different than "negative growth." In my simplified example above, the economy keeps producing shitloads (Spaceshitloads) of goods, it's just that this number doesn't grow every year. It's a steady state economy vs. one of constant growth. Unfortunately, our entire economy as it is depends on perpetual growth, not just activity. A gozillion dollars in economic activity can occur every year, but if it's not a gozillion*1.08 the following year, this is nooooooot good. Multiple factors are allowing for local markets to continue to grow: The world is still on the steep part of the energy consumption curve, the world is still on the steep part of the energy efficiency improvement curve, and--to a lesser extent--the world population is still growing exponentially. All three ingredients to a growth economy still exist. The Petri dish will fill up someday, though. Probably not in any of our lifetims. Except maybe Race.
I like the printing press idea, though. -
This whole thread: TL; DR
-
And yet bothered to come to the end of what is one of the more intellectually interesting threads I've seen on HCH in a very long time and say you didn't read it? I'm sitting here trying to keep up with them, and you besmirch their contributions so? Come on, man?BennyBeaver said:This whole thread: TL; DR
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry. -
Now Benny.creepycoug said:
And yet bothered to come to the end of what is one of the more intellectually interesting threads I've seen on HCH in a very long time and say you didn't read it? I'm sitting here trying to keep up with them, and you besmirch their contributions so? Come on, man?BennyBeaver said:This whole thread: TL; DR
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry. -
Quoting yourself?creepycoug said:
Now Benny.creepycoug said:
And yet bothered to come to the end of what is one of the more intellectually interesting threads I've seen on HCH in a very long time and say you didn't read it? I'm sitting here trying to keep up with them, and you besmirch their contributions so? Come on, man?BennyBeaver said:This whole thread: TL; DR
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry. -
This is what I’m talking about Ben. We’re serious people here. The Mularkey must be limited.BennyBeaver said:
Quoting yourself?creepycoug said:
Now Benny.creepycoug said:
And yet bothered to come to the end of what is one of the more intellectually interesting threads I've seen on HCH in a very long time and say you didn't read it? I'm sitting here trying to keep up with them, and you besmirch their contributions so? Come on, man?BennyBeaver said:This whole thread: TL; DR
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry. -
